1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) removed 1/7 of the shares of each building listed in paragraph 2 of the Schedule;

(b) separate sheet.

Facts of recognition

The Defendants concerned are children between D and E.

D was divorced from E around 1979, and married to F in around 1980.

D The D died on November 3, 2010, and the F died on September 2014.

On July 22, 1997, F had completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and constructed the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the annexed Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land jointly with D around 2002.

On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land through a compulsory auction.

As to the building of this case, registration of preservation of ownership has not been made up until now.

The plaintiff between the plaintiff and F brought a lawsuit against F against the plaintiff seeking payment of royalties for the land in this case as Suwon District Court Branch 2010Kadan15273, and the above lawsuit was concluded on June 22, 2011, F paid to the plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 per the end of each month from June 2010 until the day when the plaintiff loses the ownership of the building in this case or the day when F loses the ownership of the building in this case.

Since then, upon delay in paying the money set forth in paragraph (1) 1, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F against F to seek removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land in Suwon District Court case 2012Kadan15093. On October 16, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that F did not pay the land rent for two (2) years in arrears, and that the statutory superficies has been extinguished due to the lapse of two (2) years. In the absence of any dispute (based on recognition), Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (each entry and the purport of the entire pleadings).

The Defendants asserted by the parties, who were co-owners of the instant building, inherited one-seven shares of each of the above buildings from D, and thereby occupy the instant land, which is the site of the said building.

However, the defendants are not entitled to occupy the land of this case, and this is therefore.